(Reposted in this community cuz I didn’t get any responses in the original community that I posted this under)

This is how I understand the communist utopia: Workers seize means of production. Means of production thus, start working for the proletariat masses rather than the bourgeoisie class. Thus, technological progress stops being stifled and flourishes. Humanity achieves a post scarcity-like environment for most goods and services. Thus, money becomes irrelevant at a personal level.

In all this, I can’t see how we stop needing a state. How can we build bridges without a body capable of large scale organisation? How would we have a space program without a state for example? I clearly have gotten many things wrong here. However, I’m unable to find what I’ve gotten wrong on my own. Plz help <3

Edit: Okay, got a very clear and sensible answer from @Aidinthel@reddthat.com. Unfortunately, I don’t know how to link their comment. Hence, here is what they said:

Depends on how you define “state”. IIRC, Marx drew a distinction between “state” and “government”, where the former is all the coercive institutions (cops, prisons, courts, etc). In this framework, you need a “government” to do the things you refer to, but participation in that government’s activities should be voluntary, without the threat of armed government agents showing up at your door if you don’t comply.

  • homoludens@feddit.de
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    There are different ideas how (and if) this could work. E.g. worker’s councils that form at a factory level (or similar - people who are working closely together), and then you might have higher levels of cooperation where e.g. all roadworking collectives in a region send delegates to coordinate who builds which road, what roads are even necessary etc. You’d probably want cooperation in another dimension as well: delegates of road working collectives coordinating with teamsters, urban planners, manufactureres of building materials, … But it would be networks of networks, not a top-down structure responsible for everything from kindergartens to space exploration and equipped with military and police power.

    You might want to check out The Disposessed by Ursula K. LeGuin or bolo’bolo by P.M. for some more ideas.

    • jmp242
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      1 year ago

      The problem I have always seen is how do you deal with bad actors in general? It always eventually comes down to force.

      No police or military just means that eventually some one will come in and take over.

      • homoludens@feddit.de
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        People will have to be vigilant. But they have to be now as well - having a state does not provide safety against the rise of fascism or global corporations trashing our planet, as we can see.

        That is of course something people must (re-)learn through practice. We can’t just “abolish the state” and expect people to suddenly have all the skills needed for self-organizing.

        • jmp242
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          The question here is just is a self organized posse better than the state police? I guess there’s a reason that kind of went away in the west as it became less “wild”. And we see what self protection or self enforcement leads to in many reports in the US. It’s differently crappy / violent but not obviously better.